Bombs, Missiles and Pakistani Science

``.....Thirdly, and lastly, a nation`s scientific level is estimated by the quality of science taught in its educational institutions, and the extent to which scientific thinking is part of the general public consciousness. It is not necessary to say very much in this regard. Even our leaders admit that the country`s schools, colleges, and universities are in shambles. An internationally administered test in 1983 established that 6th grade Japanese students performed better in physics and mathematics than 11th grade Pakistani students. And with creeping Talibanization, the dawn of scientific enlightenment among the masses recedes daily. Pakistan fails the third criterion as well. ....``


I totally disagree maybe you don`t really know the quality that is taught in pakistani uniersities, Pakistani student are far more better in manipiulation mathmaticcal expression that Japanese who by far have no damed knowledge of biology and human scince except that there educational system emphasis mainly on technical side not theory. A japanese or any nationalities student can`t write a proper quality thesis than Pakistani students. the only problem is Our current education system, remember students learn what system allows them to learn. Our so called government can easily pionts out and criticize students and teachers but they themselves does not change or improved our education system which leaves us (students & teachers) with a black spot. If we were to have left using british board and improved our education system with a more technical side then we could have scientist and engineer`s in quantity

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dear Dr Hoodhboy,
In one of your interviews with Dawn `Magazine` you said something to the effect that these days a country doesn`t really require much expertise to become a nuclear power... ``all you need is money``.

Keeping those words in mind, exactly WHY is our Government acting so pompously, and may I add, irresponsibly? They attribute it to the fact that `Our Nuclear Weapons are for defence only...``. Surely there must be more to it than that?

Any comments on this?

Nayyara Rahman

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dear Pervez: AA..

You are bound to have a sharp memory--and this is

nostalgia. Of course, your name has become almost a household word, at least among somewhat

educated, open-minded households!

It was in 1974 I met you and your entire family--in Karachi, when your parents took me for dinner at the Karachi Gymkhana. You were perhaps in high-school or college and Naseem was also in high-school/college. Samir and I were connected at Brown Univ. in 1964-65 and have known each other since, though lost touch recently. At his calling, I was fortunate to have visited all of you in Karachi in 1974. Do you recall?

Of course, you are now an internationally-known scholar--and scholar of multidimensional talents.

Not long ago I obtained a copy of your Islam and Science--provocative, to-the-point, and often I quote you among friends here and there. And your other inspiring discourses on various issues.

You are indeed making your mark in the Islamic civilization, indeed, the human civilization, I should say.

Where are Samir/Khatoon these days? I saw him briefly in Karachi in 1998--then lost touch. Occasionally I hear about him and the family from our mutual friend Riaz (Boston Univ.)--perhaps you have known him too. Last I heard Samir was in some senior capacity with Hamdard Foundation?

Would you have his e-mail?

Again, if you recall, I am now almost in the twilight zone of my career--most of the years at the University of Idaho, as faculty/dept.chair, etc. Lately, I have been publishing things on medieval Islamic socio-economic thought and its links with Latin-European Renaissance--there is so much ignorance in the West on such linkages.

All good wishes and salams for you and your loved ones....

Ghazi

(S.M. Ghazanfar

Professor of Economics

University of Idaho

Moscow, Idaho 83843

e-mail: ghazi@uidaho.edu

Phone 208-882-7619 (H)

208-885-7144(Office)

Can Islam and science co-exist?



Indiana U. visiting prof from Pakistan: Can Islam and science co-exist?

Updated 12:00 PM ET October 25, 2000

By Kalpana Ramgopal

Indiana Daily Student

Indiana U.

(U-WIRE) BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- How would a scientist and teacher react if he were asked to teach that oxygen and hydrogen fused to form water by the will of God, and not because of a chemical reaction?

Since Friday, Professor Parvez Hoodbhoy, a physics professor from Pakistan`s Quaid-e-Azam University, has been telling Indiana University students about the Muslim nation`s efforts to ``Islamize every form of knowledge.`` He is concerned that pervasive Muslim fundamentalists` interpretations of science might not be able to coexist with modern science.

He also addressed the risks of an accidental nuclear war, Pakistan`s relations with its neighbors and the condition of education in Pakistan.

Hoodbhoy said he believes these issues are of importance because ``Muslims constitute about a fifth of humanity. Also, the issue of Islam and science is of importance not only to the future of Muslims but to everyone.``

As an insider -- Muslim by birth and a physics professor in Pakistan -- he has been expressing concerns about the inability and unwillingness of Islamic countries to develop science and a scientific culture.

``To me, science is not just about technology. Science also brings with it a very particular world view. Acceptance of science and rationality implies that a society accepts laws that are made by humans for humans, instead of following some version of divine law interpreted by clerics,`` Hoodbhoy said.

Noretta Koertge, professor emeritus of history and philosophy of science, said one of the most interesting aspects of the history of science is the relationship between science and religion.

``It is a question science educators in America have to deal with -- creation science in the classroom,`` Koertge said.

Koertge planned Hoodbhoy`s lecture, ``Can Islam and Science Co-Exist.``

Hoodbhoy said he never thought about society or the welfare of others when he went to MIT from an elitist school in Pakistan in 1969.

``You only thought about your own personal advancement,`` he said.

From 1969 to 1973, in the midst of the Vietnam War, he was an undergraduate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Many groups on the campus actively protested MIT`s involvement with the war.

``What bowled me over was seeing the student community up in revolt against their own government, whom they saw fighting an unjust and cruel war,`` Hoodbhoy said. ``I never thought that the people of a country could rise up against their own government.``

He also saw years of war between East and West Pakistan, and Hoodbhoy said the atrocities committed closer to home forced him to look within and join political demonstrations on campus. Hoodbhoy said these began his early years as a committed Marxist.

At MIT he fell in love with physics and ``saw it as a window into the marvelous world of nature.``

Recognizing the futility of protesting the situation in Pakistan from America, he decided to return to Pakistan. At home he worked with peasants and workers for two years while teaching at Islamabad University.

Hoodbhoy returned to MIT in 1975, received his doctorate degree in nuclear physics and returned to Pakistan in 1978. He has since been a professor at Quaid-e-Azam University and has been involved in social causes.

``Initially I worked at bringing justice for the poor. In time the focus shifted to fighting against nuclear weapons and militarism and fighting for democracy and education,`` Hoodbhoy said. ``Educating people about sciences occupies most of my time these days.``

Koerteg said she was struck by his commitment to his country and science.

``As an MIT-trained physicist who has published and continues to publish extensively in Physics Review and other top-ranked journals, he could obviously find a very comfortable position outside of Pakistan,`` Koerteg said. ``Yet it is very clear that he believes his mission is to contribute to science education in Pakistan, to try to influence public policy there in a way that will permit people to have `cultural pride`...``

Hoodbhoy has been outspoken in his distaste for Pakistan`s acquisition of nuclear weapons. He said the country became involved in the nuclear race after India began to build atomic weapons.

``While initially Pakistan was driven to possess nuclear weapons, it now is very happy with it and under no circumstances will give it up,`` Hoodbhoy said.

Senior Hilal Ahmad, who is from Pakistan, said Monday`s discussion gave him a chance to talk with one of his country`s leading thinkers.

``Dr. Hoodbhoy spoke about the likelihood of a war between Pakistan and her eastern neighbor, India, stating that such a war would most likely occur because of a miscalculation by the parties involved, leading to a war that neither side really wanted, and where nuclear weapons would almost certainly be used.`` said Ahmad, treasurer of the Pakistani Student Association.

Hoodbhoy also addressed science education.

``Today, out of 48 Muslim countries, not one can be called scientifically developed in the sense of Western Europe, Japan or even India, and that less than 1 percent of names in science journals are Muslim,`` he said.

Hoodbhoy said that during the last 700 years, not one invention has been attributed to Muslims. He said that`s a problem that has resulted in a ``massive importation of Western technology, ideas and the fruits of science, but science itself.``

Hoodbhoy said he believes the Muslims` adherence to traditional values has worked to their disadvantage. He said the Palestinians are getting a ``raw deal`` in the Israel-Palestine issue because they are a traditional society.

``No one cares because it is a traditional society versus a modern society,`` he said.

But he was quick to point out that Muslim society has lost out both because of imperialism and colonialism, as well as the cruelties it has inflicted upon itself.

As examples, he mentioned the Taliban`s treatment of women and the growth of violent religious sectarian movements in Muslim countries.

Hoodbhoy said he does not claim to have the answer to whether science and Islam are compatible because ``there does not exist a universally acceptable definition of `Muslim.```

While the physicist might seem pessimistic, he is far from it.

Though he looks at himself as a ``very ineffective reformist,`` he said he does not give himself ``an `F``` because he keeps trying.

He said not all is lost with Islamic countries.

``Most Muslim countries have people who understand the need for science and modernity,`` Hoodbhoy said. ``The revival of science in Islam is a process that will ultimately gain strength. The process is slow because Islamic culture advocates authoritarianism and is disinclined toward change.``

But Hoodbhoy said he sees ``an opportunity for cultural subversion through science. A weapon that not only can be used but must be used.``

Everyone knows that Shahbuddin Ghauri was an invader of India. He killed millions of people( Both Hindus and Muslims), plundered India, destroyed temples and mosques. Yet when India named it surface to earth missile `Prithvi` (Prithvi means `Earth` in Hindi) , Pakistani politicians tried to name their missile `Ghauri` in honor of the Muslim invader who defeated the Hindu king Prithviraj Chauhan. We have lost sight of the fact that not all of the `great Muslim heroes` were actually so.

Tomorrow we would see barbarous Chengez Khan turned into a Muslim super hero. Most of the Muslim rulers we consider ``heroes`` behaved abominably by ordering the slaughter of an embassy numbering some three hundred - most of them Muslims and also Hindus.

Those rulers who defeated the Hindus are portrayed as heroes and their achievements are glorified and admired such as Muhammad bin Qasim, Mahmud of Ghazni, and Shahabuddin Ghauri. Among the Mughal emperors, Aurangzeb is preferred to secular Akbar.

This is not only outright ignorance, but an ignorance born out of fifty three years of misconstrued history. Successive governments and bureaucrats with vested interests unaware of the fact that history has no religion, but that all religions have a history have attempted to convert the history of the Indian subcontinent to Islam. Consequently, for most Muslims in Pakistan (and perhaps even in India) any personage with an Arabic or Persian name is a supposed Islamic hero. For most ignorant folks it does not matter how disreputable that person may have been -- only the name suffices.

The History taught in Pakistan is so distorted. The view among the decision makers is that Pakistan`s history should begin from the Arab invasion of Sindh (A.D. 711) in order to give it an Islamic character. Ancient history when most Muslims in India were Hindus, prior to the Arab invasion, should be set aside, as it is not part of the Islamic history.

The process of Islamization and related ideologies have changed the approach to history as well as archaeology. All Indians and Hindus are treated as villians and Muslims heroes. Pakistan does not have any good role model, so it tries to create role Models of any Muslim. What has this produced, an entire generation of ignorant Pakistanis who are unaware of real history, but have one thing in common ie. ``Indians and Hindus are our enemies``.

Re: Bombs, missiles and Pakistan

Just want to point out that India has not only has the N-bomb and missiles, but also has a very successful civilian space program. India is already one of the major commercial suppliers of remote sensing data. India is also trying to break into the commercial launching business, where India potentially enjoys a great cost advantage over the competition. Incidentally, the cost of the civilian program from 1965-1994 totalled something like the cost of a few Boeing jumbo jets on the commercial market.

-arun gupta

In my mind the primary goal of the country at this time is economic development. Increasing scientific education is not the primary goal though this could be a useful strategy to achieve the primary goal. In the first half of the Western Industrial revolution and for the large part in the East Asian ``miracle`` science has not played the primary role. Rather it has been engineers and technicians who were able to repeat and improve on Western production processes. Very similar to what the Kahuta project did. In the early nineties, the Ministry of Science and Technology sent hundreds of people abroad at enormous cost for PhD and MSc. The majority of these people were either unemployed in their vocations on their return or underemployed. The educated unemployed in Sindh are thought to be a major factor behind lawlessness. The key thought which emerges from all this is that education has to be normative i.e. goal oriented. We need to train our people in the skills which local and world markets demand. In my field, computer software, what that means is training people in ecommerce or Lotus Domino or Oracle rather than having them conduct scientific research on improving the relational data model or in discovering a new language. A cash strapped country such as ours obviously needs to be very careful in where it spends its money. And money needs to be spent where it can generate more money and thus start a snowball affect. The other focus needs to be on how to make business/industrial processes more efficient. In the case of software this means, higher bandwidth communication, venture capital funds, and business training in management and marketing.

I read Hoodbhoy`s paper and was thoroughly confused on some issues.The author put forth a thesis in his paper that production of the nuclear

bomb by Pakistan, although not a mean feat in

itself, did not contribute to the development of

scientific education in Pakistan or was not relevant to science. However, the objectives of

making the bomb did not include such onsiderations

in the agenda; the purpose of the project was entirely different. The bomb was made to secure national defense and that objective has been accomplished, I believe. Another issue that the author mentioned was that the production of the bomb did not require any original ideas in science

and technology; these ideas are at least 50 years old. So what? One should remember that the bomb project was not a `scientific research project`. The bomb was produced for national defence easons. The correlation between the bomb project and ``Pakistani science`` is unfortunate; the two are not related. If the bomb did not do much to develop any scientific research or contribute to science education in Pakistan, it did not depress such activities either. Science education in Pakistan continues to be as bad as it was 50 years back. It is not for want of money. One good thing that the `explosions` did was that they hit the common man in the street as hard as nothing before and made him think and believe that Pakistan needs science and technology. Science and technology are needed for national survival.

Another point that may have been implied in the paper is that the money that was spent on the bomb project could probably have been more usefully spent on science education and research. There is no dearth of money in Pakistan. The money spent on the bomb was usefully spent otherwise it would have gone to line the private pockets of influential corrupt Pakistanis. Discussing the rampant corruption in Pakistan, Ghazali (1) states ``on April 20, 1994, giving details about the payments made by Yunus Habib (Chief Executive of Mehran Bank) to generals, politicians, and political parties, Interior Minister, General Nasirullah Babar, told the National Assembly that the main beneficiary of his largesse was former army chief General Mirza Aslam Beg who received Rs.140 millions. Others who were named included: Jam Sadiq Ali (Rs. 70 millions from Habib Bank and Rs. 150 millions from Mehran Bank); MQM`s Altaf Hussein (Rs. 20 millions);.....;Nawaz Sharif (Rs. 6 millions);Chief Minister of Sindh, Muzaffar Hussein Shah through his secretary (Rs. 13 millions);MQM`s Haqiqi(Rs. 5 millions); former Sports Minister, Ajmal Khan (Rs. 3.5 millions); Liaquat Jatoi (Rs. 1 million); Dost Mohammad Faizi (Rs. 1 million); and Jam Haider (Rs. 2 million).``

Another uncomfortable impression that I gathered after reading the paper was that engineers` contributions, according to the author, are somehow inferior to those of the scientists. According to him ``making bombs and missiles of the type Pakistan and India possess is now the work of engineers and no longer that of scientists``. As if the first bomb that the U.S. produced was without any assistance from the engineers. Is Hoodbhoy implying that the first atomic bomb was the handiwork of the scientists alone? Are`nt we forgetting one important fact? The Manhattan Project was spearheaded by an engineer. What was Leslie Groves who was the chief executive of the Manhattan Project? Yes sir: He was a U.S. Army Engineer. Score of Nobel Laureates, phyisicists, chemists, mathematicians and others, worked under him. According to William Lawren (2), ``He (Groves) had worked with scientists before, and although he did not deny their intelligence and capability, he felt that they tended to be impractical. Instead of sticking with a perfectly good design and seeing it through, they were forever tinkering with it, forever improving it, forever drifting off on interesting but not quite-relevant tangents``. The success of Manhattan Project owed itself to team work and the leadership of a driven and obsessed engineer.

A developing society like Pakistan, and the developed countries as well, needs all kinds of skilled professionals. It needs engineers of all kinds, technicians, technologists, scientists, medical doctors, health scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, liberal artists, writers, poets,.... you name it. Engineering education in Pakistan is as miserable as of science and of liberal arts. There should be room for intellectuals as well as down to earth practical professionals. A scociety can not develop in vaccum. You need engineers to build dams and hydro-electric and thermal power plants, to build roads and bridges, railways, automobiles, aeroplanes and air ports. You need imaginative technologists to develop new technologies; you need poets and painters; you need theoretical and experimental physicists and chemists, so on and so forth. True Dr Qadir Khan is not a nuclear physicist but he himself does not claim to be one. His being a metallurgical engineer in no way detract anything from his monumental feat of producing the bomb for which he was hired in the first place. And you know what? A common citizen does`nt give two hoots if he is only a metallurgical engineer and not a nuclear physicist. Labelling professionals by the degrees that they received in schools and colleges may many a time be fallacious, although convenient. How would you label Michael Faraday, the greatest scientist of his time? He did not have much of formal education. Please try not to misunderstand me; I am not implying that Dr Khan is some kind of a Farady. He is a metallurgical engineer and an excellent one too. I do not know the man personally but he may have published some research papers also in his own specialized field.

References:

1. Abdus Sattar Ghazali, ``Islamic Pakistan: Illusions and Reality``, National Book Club, Islamabad, Chapter XI, p. 22 of 28.

2. William Lawren, ``The General and the Bomb``, Dodd, Mead and Company, New York, 1988, p. 25.



Mohammad A. Gill

Re: Noor

[``...personal jib...deserved...``]

I wish you had not seen it fit to get personal. The one thing that impedes meaningful discourse is the unimpeded expression of ``personal frustration`` with other InterActors. Why don`t we simply `be and let be`.

BTW, I am just as guilty as the next person of doing what I am hoping others don`t. So next time I step out of line please throw a virtual rotten tomatoe in my face. :)

...SR

Oh..another thing..

Saad Shafqat`s frustration comes from Dr. Hoodbhoy`s choice not to interact with people here. Why in the world should he and why should he care what Saad Shafqat thinks?

Noor

Saad Shafqat wrote:

``I think you are obliged to do something more substantial for Pakistan than just complain. ``

I don`t think Dr. Hoodbhoy has the time to answer to this ridiculous admonishment/accusation. I am amazed at Mr.Shafqat`s gall in writing this. Dr. Hoodbhoy does other things besides writing on Chowk. He has done alot for Pakistan, more than his fair share for Pakistan. Difference is that he doesn`t go about advertising his work on Chowk. The last thing he needs to do is answering to armchair intellectuals who think they can change pakistan from their offices in Boston or New York.

Yes this is a stinging personal jibe I am taking and it is quite well-deserved.

Saad Shafqat wrote:

``I think you are obliged to do something more substantial for Pakistan than just complain. ``

I don`t think Dr. Hoodbhoy has the time to answer to this ridiculous admonishment/accusation. I am amazed at Mr.Shafqat`s gall in writing this. Dr. Hoodbhoy does other things besides writing on Chowk. He has done a lot for Pakistan, more than his fair share for Pakistan. Difference is that he doesn`t go about advertising his work on Chowk. The last thing he needs to do is answering to armchair intellectuals who think they can change pakistan from their offices in Boston or New York.

Yes this is a stinging personal jibe I am taking and it is quite well-deserved.

Re: aminai, #32

``The kind of movement we need requires someone who is completely selfless, totally obsessed, eternally optimistic, and, yes, absolutely shameless. In other words, someone like Syed Ahmad Khan, who had no hesitation in doing whatever it took to fulfill his ideal.``

Once again, sir, you said it!

It is most unfortunate for Pakistan that many among the Chowk wahlas, though much like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (who is one of my two heroes, the other one being Jinnah)in their thinking, are very comfortable in their arm-chairs.

Re: Saad Shafqat

Saad,

Thanks for speaking of me in the same breath as Parvez Hoodbhoy, but I don`t deserve it. As Akbar said about Sir Syed,

hamArI bAteN hI bAtEN haeN, sayyad kAm kartA haE

More seriously, it is great that you and Anita are planning to go back. I join SR in wishing you the very best, and have no doubt that you will do very well. However, on this day when Eqbal Ahmad passed away with his dreams of Khaldunia unfulfilled, I cannot imagine giving up what you so kindly call a `flourishing academic career` to go bang my head against the wall of the Pakistani establishment in order to establish something worthwhile. Indeed, all of your suggestions would require me to give up my `flourishing academic career`, and one --- joining Imran Khan --- would mean giving up my principles as well.

The kind of movement we need requires someone who is completely selfless, totally obsessed, eternally optimistic, and, yes, absolutely shameless. In other words, someone like Syed Ahmad Khan, who had no hesitation in doing whatever it took to fulfill his ideal. Such men (or women) are born once in decades --- perhaps centuries. I am not that person. I like my career. I love my armchair. But, as Milton might have said had he followed this discussion, they also serve who only sit and gripe:-). You know, complaining well is an art, and can be very useful. Indeed, complaining is a very large part of what even great reformers have done. Read the Bible --- it is full of complaints! But you know what? I`d rather complain from the US of A -- well beyond the reach of ISI or SSP or XXX, YYY, and ZZZ --- rather than in Lahore or Islamabad, like Najam Sethi. Parvez Hoodbhoy is brave enough to say what he says given where he is. Don`t ask him to be any braver lest some midnight caller come knocking on his door too. There is no glory in that.

Best Wishes,

Ali

PS for SR: Thanks for coming to my defence, but I don`t mind what Saad says. He is a very dear friend, and what he says is true. I just don`t agree with it:-):-).

Please Sir, can the good Doctor publish this article in India too, with the words Pakistan and India substituted for the word Pakistan?

I wish there was some way to reach the author with this request. I am certain most of India`s major national newspapers (The Times of India, Hindustan Times, Hindu, and perhaps, Indian Express) as well as national mags like India Today and The Weekly would be pleased to publish such an objective and well crafted piece. And if any of them doesn`t -- Gosh, I would like to know that too, for that will certainly destroy my delusions about the Indian press.

Chowk staff and other friends, can someone pass on this suggestion to esteemed author? Alternatively, just send me his address at premshukla@hotmail.com

Thanks a million.

Prem

P.S.: I chanced upon this forum today and was enormously impressed. So long as there is such free thinking in Pakistan and India, I am hopeful for the two countries.

Re: Saad

[``...I am relocating to Pakistan next year where I hope to devote myself to ...advancing the biomedical sciences in Pakistan...``]

More power to you brother! I salute your bravery and admire your idealism, but I am not the least bit envious of your future predicament.

An ancient Chinese saying goes thus: It is better to strike one match stick than to curse the eternal darkness. You surely will be striking a match stick in that eternal darkness which clouds the Indus Valley of today. May guardian angels watch over you and your family in that inhospitable wilderness.

Having said this, I still insist that you step out of line when you judge others because they are mere ``armchair critics`` and have no interest in rolling up their sleves and getting down and dirty. To each his own.

Our new friend, Ali, may not be one to go and lead a campaign for the progress of science in the ``Islamabad Republic`` (I stand admonished and thus shall not use the term `Phuckistan` --which, BTW, describes, rather graphically, what muck the supposed `Land of the Pure`has turned into), but that does not make his arguments and observations invalid. Before you admonish him or our good friend, Dr.PH of QAU, I ask that you consider the merit of their observations with a dispassionate frame of mind and don`t get indignant that they `just talk and DO nothing`. Some talk, some do, some talk AND do. Again, to each his own.

...SR

PS: Before you go off next year, we must do that picnic you got everyone excited about...Then, years later, when we`ll read on the cover of TIME, about ``The Man Who Singlehandedly Revolutionized Medicine in a Third World Backwater Area of Korangi``, we`ll be able to brag to bystanders that we attended a picnic, with none other than the great Saad himself. :)

Re: Saad

[``...I am relocating to Pakistan next year where I hope to devote myself to ...advancing the biomedical sciences in Pakistan...``]

More power to you brother! I salute your bravery and admire your idealism, but I am not the least bit envious of your future predicament.

An ancient Chinese saying goes thus: It is better to strike one match stick than to curse the eternal darkness. You surely will be striking a match stick in that eternal darkness which clouds the Indus Valley of today. May guardian angels watch over you and your family in that inhospitable wilderness.

Having said this, I still insist that you step out of line when you judge others because they are mere ``armchair critics`` and have no interest in rolling up their sleves and getting down and dirty. To each his own.

Our new friend, Ali, may not be one to go and lead a campaign for the progress of science in the ``Islamabad Republic`` (I stand admonished and thus shall not use the term `Phuckistan` --which, BTW, describes, rather graphically, what muck the supposed `Land of the Pure`has turned into), but that does not make his arguments and observations invalid. Before you admonish him or our good friend, Dr.PH of QAU, I ask that you consider the merit of their observations with a dispassionate frame of mind and don`t get indignant that they `just talk and DO nothing`. Some talk, some do, some talk AND do. Again, to each his own.

...SR

PS: Before you go off next year, we must do that picnic you got everyone excited about...Then, years later, when we`ll read on the cover of TIME, about ``The Man Who Singlehandedly Revolutionized Medicine in a Third World Backwater Area of Korangi``, we`ll be able to brag to bystanders that we attended a picnic, with none other than the great Saad himself. :)

Re: SR (reply #27).

Unfortunately I have been unable to directly engage Dr. Hoodbhoy here and in part the statement that has offended you comes from frsutration at his choosing not to InterAct with us. The point I am hoping to make is straightforward. Pakistan`s success with nuclear technology shows that money and official endorsement can achieve quite a bit even in a Third World country like Pakistan. Everything can be approached in a negative way or a positive way. We may not agree with Pakistan`s nuclear weapons program but the achievement was certainly not trivial (even Dr. Hoodbhoy says as much). Rather than send reactionary articles to Pakistani newspapers, I should think the sincere and intellligent well-wishers of Pakistani science would now try to see how the same kind of money and official endorsement can be realized for the more purely scientific areas of endeavor. Articles like the one here may appeal to armchair critics like yourself, but they close off the possibility of dialogue with the government and actually hurt the prospects of scientifc development in Pakistan. I am relocating to Pakistan next year where I hope to devote myself to the science of stroke epidemiology and perhaps to the more general effort at advancing the biomedical sciences in Pakistan.

Saad

PS: I welcome dissent of course, but with civility; I wish you`d stop using words like `Phuckistan.`

To ALL:

Re: ``If you have so much to say about what`s wrong with Phuckistan, then get of your behinds and do something...``

Without naming any names, I`d like to remark that this is another form of `personal attack` and in rather poor taste. If I should have any valid arguments against those who are making certain observations which I find negative, then it behooves me to simply challenge those observations point by point. I`d be less than upright if I stoop to the level of personal credibility issues and begin taunting people that they are not worthy of making any observations because all they do is bad mouth my motherland and sit on their behinds in the US.

If I believe that ``going back doing something`` is the better way then I should be the one to ``GO`` and ``DO``, instead of telling others.

...SR

Re: Godot # 24

Do you have ESP talents by chance?

Apprently I misunderstood the intention of your arguments. If you are suggesting a new system for Pakistan, over a long term, then I would say you are on the mark! To be perfectly honest with you, the more I look in to this question the more I am convinced that most of our problems stem from the confusion; is Pakistan secular or theocratic and this debate seems to polarize Pakistani politics into a realm of rigid incoherence! I think we both agree that solution must be deviced which will clear this problem, which seems to be our misfortune since 1947 and the most disruptive influence on our political system!

I am presently penning an article on this issue of a Pakistani identity and it seems that that you`re once again head of me. The conclusion of my paper seems to support your views and there is a strong suggestion that the policies Pakistan has been following for the past half century are discrediated and not in the interests of Pakistan. I am also coming around to the viewpoint that Pakistan should follow a tabula rasa (clean slate) approach and ditch the ideas of last fifty years and re-create its political identity anew.

I agree that such a task would not be easy, but it must be done if Pakistan is to survive as country into the next century. You are right. We can not rely on the disgraced policies of the past to solve our problems!!!!

Re: Feroz, #22

Feroz, our disagreement, if there is one, seems to be in our central views: you seem to believe that Pakistani political system is not to be blamed, it`s the people who hold power are the rotten crop; fine, I say, I agree with you with the latter part, but it`s the system that has allowed the crud to rise and hold power.

I`m not saying that we replace the system because it`s a bad system. It probably is an excellent system, but not for Pakistan. We must carve a system that is best for Pakistan, in a Pakistani context. Yes, a replacement system must be in place before the current system could be replaced. The bigger challenge is not to come up with an alternative system, but its implementation. I`m not asking to throw the baby out with the bath water! I`m an advocate of a long-term solution, or, 100 years from now, Pakistan would still be where it is today: confused, bankrupt, chaotic, and weak, its leadership ignorant and corrupt, its people poor and without future; it would still be a country, Feroz, where you wouldn`t want to live, just as you don`t today, no matter how much you love it.

Your contention that Pakistan is completely confused about its identity, its political ideology, its judicial system, etc, reinforces my argument that a system must be defined for Pakistan that would clear all this. Not an easy task, my friend!

With refrence to westren aids to be linked to improving conditions in Pakistan and other officially corrupt countries.Please contact Transparency International, They are just trying to do that. Mr. Fritz Heiman can be contacted in Con.USA office at (203) 373 2211 Fax ( 203) 373-2523.

If we find eveidence that western companies are getting contract with kickbacks or the funds are not being used for the purposes it intended. As a Pakistani, We should share all the relative information to their office with followup.

Warm regards to all;

Sufi

Re: Godot #19

The difference, between American politicans ala Rostenkowski et al and their Pakistani counter-parts, is that despite all their faults the Americans still abide by the system. Pakistanis do not!

Godot, my only problem with kicking down the rotten structure of Pakistani system is a question as to what will replace it? Unless we have a replacement ready to go, dis-crediting the present system is not the solution to our problems. Yes, I agree with you that this is a band-aid approach to what basically is a case of massive internal bleeding, but we should not kill the patient just to save him!

You will find no dis-agreements from me on your observations on the decline and fall of the Pakistani system of government, but merely a tangential comment. Remember, our political insitutions are only as good as the people who inhabit them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the intent of our system, but merely with the intent of the people who use them for their own means. There is no sense in denying that the system, as presently structured, is responsible for a host of problems which haunt Pakistan.

The long term security of Pakistan lies in the independence of its political institutions from political nepotism and political patronages. The present difficulties confronting Pakistan can be traced to the immutable reality that Pakistan has no viable political institutions and is presently struggling to define its political identity, as secular or theocratic state, and that confusion has diluted its political institutions to a point of impotence. Just take a glimpse into our judical system. Pakistan is trying to fashion its legal system as based on Islamic principles, but yet retaining the British common law tradition. In this effort to define its legal system, it has created a sense of confusion and has in effect cancelled out the deterrence value of justice with the end result that we have no crediable system for enforcing justice! Should we punish crimes under the Islamic system or the British common law one? Result: no crimes are punished!

In short, I think that we as a nation need to revitalize our political institutions and make them crediable before we can even think of our politicans abiding by their intent. Yes, you are right to say that the system is corrupt and rotten, but that does not mean we should give it up as a lost cause!

Re: Ali Minai (reply #17).

Dear Ali,

I think the point of our intellectual and scientific backwardness is a rather obvious and trivial one. With respect, Ali, Pakistanis like yourself and Pervez Hoodbhoy, who have flourishing scientific careers and who seek the advancement of science in Pakistan, need to get off their behinds and do more for the development of Pakistani science than merely pointing out that Pakistan is lacking in scientific progress. Some suggestions:

1. Contest a seat in the National Assembly or Senate.

2. Develop a movement to undo the feudal stanglehold on Pakistan.

3. Join Imran Khan`s Tehrik-e-Insaaf, the only truly middle-class political organization in Pakistan.

4. Lobby with the PM`s secretariat for more funding for the Pakistan Science Foundation.

5. Use your intellects to do good science from within Pakistan (if the gifted can`t do it, how can we expect the rest to ?)

6. Arrange funds and personnel to create a world-class research institute in Pakistan that has enough money to attract the best Pakistani minds from abroad (and retain the ones from within) and enough resources to ensure all the modern necessities of academic work, including proper library and technical facilities, a safe work environment, and travel support.

Saad

I remember reading an Indian-American expert`s interview who is a giant in the field of nonlinear controls and a former professor at U. Wisconsin. A lover of tilgo poetry and a stanch pacifist, his friends were quite surprise when he accepted the invitation from the Indian government to head the Indian missile program. But his answer was that India doesn`t go around the world invading weaker countries; India is surrounded by enemies [supposedly China and Pakistan]. (IEEE Spectrum, 1994?) That`s what an Indian pacifist is saying and, Pirthavi and Agni might be carrying his signatures. Dr. Hoodbhoy, whose side you are on, sir?

Re: Feroz, #18

``The problem in Pakistan is not system per se, but the people who run the system!``

But isn`t it the system there that has allowed the crud to rise to the top and to hold the future of the nation hostage?

I`d bet that ``bad`` people exist in every religion, society, culture and country; that the percentage of these ``bad`` people is constant across board, but it is not significant, perhaps not more than 5 percent. In some systems they get to the top, hold the power and abuse it to the full extent; in other, they can still rise to the top but are unable to abuse the power to their shameless advantage because the system does not allow it.

You think, Feroz, that Dan Rostenkowski, if he were in Pakistan, would`ve been forced out of the office for a crime that pales in comparison to what takes place in Pakistan?

You think, Feroz, If Nawaz Sharif were in the US, he could get away with $10 billion in default loans to the banks?

It is the system in Pakistan, Feroz, that has allowed individuals there to get away with murder because they are politically powerful.

While it`s true that guns (read system) don`t kill, people do; it`s the gun that is used to kill innocent people.

Re: Godot #16

Yaar, you seem to be two steps ahead of me! :)

That idea of tying western aid is merely an idea I am toying with. The problem is that there needs to be a ground swell of a similar opinion and the abilty to translate that opinion into policy!

Answering the question of Pakistani political system being amended for the better, that would hinge on the ability to change Pakistani leaderships` mindsets. I had a really interesting insight into the problem recently. I had just e-mailed a family friend, in Karachi, to ask for further contacts to aid Dr. Amjad Ali get justice and I mentioned if I should try to contact a certain gentleman who happens to an old family friend and as fate would have it, also happens to be the Speaker of the National Assembly and I was told point-blank not to waste my time! That gentlemen is not interested in helping ordinary people!!!

So my friend, the challenge is how do we make our reps. interested in the ordinary person! How do we make our reps. represent us not their own interests? The problem in Pakistan is not system per se, but the people who run the system!

Re. Saad Shafqat (Rep. #7)

Saad,

I always like it when people agree with me publicly:-). But seriously speaking, your response to my posting provides valid reasons why the four countries I mentioned are doing better scientifically that Pakistan. The question I have is: Why can`t we have a reason to be good too? How is it that all reasons (long tradition of scientific excellence, selfless leaders, ablishing of feudalism, Judaism, etc.) occur only in other countries? We are doing something wrong. In fact, we are doing almost everything wrong. But pointing out the problems one at a time --- as Dr. Hoodbhoy did --- is still better than saying nothing, waiting until a global synopsis of our national failings can be assembled.

Unlike some other respondents, I do think that the issue of how we view Pakistan`s scientific and intellectual ``progress`` is of great significance. The first step in aiming high is to realize one`s true current state. Recall that old Persian saying about four classes of people: 1) Those who know, and know that they know; 2) Those who know, but think they (still) do not know (enough); 3) Those who are ignorant, and realize their ignorance; and 4) Those who are ignorant, and ignorant of their own ignorance. We need to move out of class 4, and it is very important that this happen at a national level.

From my limited experience of Pakistan and Pakistanis, one factor which keeps us from acknowledging our truly miserable state is our national and institutionalized paranoia. When we can blame every problem on the West, the Jews, the Hindus, the CIA, the Foreign Hand, the British, and such, we feel no need to acknowledge our own defects. After all, how could we, the Best of Allah`s People, be intellectually backward? It must either be a foreign conspiracy, or the rest of the world`s criteria for achievement are wrong. Now, I know this is a very exaggerated view, and there are many in Pakistan who do not subscribe to such nonsense, but, unfortunately, our government, our institutions, and our media (to some degree) ahave an over-representation of paranoid reactionaries.

I agree with Ferozk that we need to decide whether Pakistan will be a secular state or a theocracy. From my perspective, there is only one sensible choice --- no prize for guessing which one:-). However, I see no sign that such a choice will be made in the foreseeable future.

One last point specific to my previous post. Indian science may not have reached the height and quality of Western science in general, but in specific areas of engineering, mathematics, and physics, they have a very respectable presence, and vie with the best.

Ali Minai

Re: Feroz, #13

Thanks for the reply.

Your suggestion of tying Western aid to Pakistan with all sorts of good social behavior is probably good in theory only. You and I both know that in order for Pakistan to become anything resembling a civilized nation, it must change from the top. The Band-Aid solutions are not the long-term solutions. The entire political structure needs to be changed, assuring that those in power are held accountable for their actions affecting the country. A system of checks and balances needs to be in place.

The unfortunate thing about me discussing solutions to Pakistan`s problems is that I`m a tiger without teeth; an arm-chair analyst, as they say. My thoughts of doing away with the provincial borders and redrawing the lines along smaller districts in Pakistan is an idea that cannot be put in place without actions and concrete efforts, so is the idea of holding elections every three years (this is how it is done in Australia, I understand). To change a country like Pakistan from top down is a Herculean effort, to say the least. It cannot be done without politicians with vision and political will.

Anyway, I just wanted to put some ideas down and hope someone who can make a real difference will pick up on them, or have better ideas. The bottom line is that I`d love to see a Pakistan that is prosperous, tolerant and secure, where a good majority lives in peace and harmony and has only middle-class worries (middle-class, as we understand that term in the US). I always wonder if it can be done, and if I`d live long enough to see that.

Another well written article by the good Doctor.
Pakistan has as it`s primary source of danger
the POPULATION Bomb to worry about above all else.
The fallout from this danger is the expanding
ignorance and declining living standard of the
Pakistani masses.
Chaghi or Chagai can deter India but who can
counter such alarming population growth and
WHO IS DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

Ras

Re: maTha, #11

I agree with you vehemently. Beating the dead horse was not my reference to this article of the esteemed professor. I was merely venting my frustration with the `pahaya-jam` (stuck wheel?) political situation in Pakistan. I am going to eat my bagel now (I love bagels; I`ll tell you, this is all Zionist conspiracy!)

Re: Khan, #12

My apologies to you and to all those who have taken umbrage to my `beating a dead horse.` Please see above, my response to maTha. I think I`ll have another bagel (I`ll tell you, those damn Jews!)

Re: Godot # 8

I think you`ve put your finger on the pulse of the patient! Also: sorry for the lenght of this post since I know how much you hate long posts!

As to the gerry-meandering of Pakistani political districts and the dilulation of ethnic geographical identies, I agree with you again!

The problem with Pakistani politics is that there is no national identity, but rather we Pakistanis identify ourselves not as Pakistanis, but rather as Punjabis, Sindhis etc. The basic question we have to ask ourselves is, ``what is Pakistani?`` Think of Pakistan in the context of the situation in former Yugoslavia and you will see the problems. We are Punjabis etc. first before we are Pakistanis; we think of our ethnic interests before we think of our national interests. The break-up of the provincial political districts will certainly help in the process.

Also, the the Pakistani political habit of reserving seats for minorities needs to be dis-continued. This policy, in a realistic sense, is designed not to favor ethnic harmony, but rather to highlight ethnic differences. We should open up political representation in Pakistan to all concerned and the the elections of our political representatives should be based on the rule of meritocracy, an oxy-moronic idea in Pakistan, not on the basis of some devine fedual right!

As to the time-frame of elections, three years is rather a short time in political terms. I still favor a five year term, but with the proviso of holding a constitutionally mandated vote of no confidence every three years during a government`s tenure in office! Another thing which will help the situation in Pakistan is that we must decide if Pakistan is secular or a Islamic country; the co-existence of two philosophies is impossible and a source of potential disaster in the future! I think that we as Pakistanis have still not rationalized what is Pakistan and who we are?

These are internal reforms. Furthermore, we ex-pat Pakistanis must get in the act also. I have been thinking of this since reading about Dr. Amjad Ali`s heartbreaking case of his brother`s murder. We, es-pats, should link our financial contributions/reimbursements to the Pakistani coffers with the imrovement of human rights in Pakistan. We will keep sending monies critical foreign exchange to Pakistan as long as the Government concentrates on improving the lot of its citizens. I have been discussing this idea with Temporal and I think that we ex-pats should lobby our (American/whatever country we may reside in) representives to link the loans, development of international aid, IMF debt retirement loans and in short, any form of monetary aid to Pakistan, from western nations, and should hold them to be conditional on the Pakistani government`s record on human rights!

There is every indication if this happens, the Pakistani government will merely use this as a rhetoric of western/imperialistic conspiracy. Hence, there needs to an identification of a local pressure point, in Pakistan, which can bring pressure on the government to pay attention to this problem. The best way to do this is by linking arms sales to Pakistan to its human rights record. If we can convince the Pakistani military that it will get no new toys and then link their lack of weapons procurement to the governments` dismal record on human rights, we will be creating a potential pressure point which the government could ignore only at its own peril!

If we have to, to solve the Pakistani problems, resort to the Chigago Way we should! Like Sean Connery in the movie Untouchables said; Everyone knows where the booze is. The question is who wants to cross Al Capone! Likewise, we all know what the problems in Pakistan are and the real question is what are we prepared to do about it?

Re Lord Matha:

Spot on my good Matha. But to add on to your thoughts, this article is of immense value even if not published in Pak papers before a ``non-chowkwala`` audience: (a) This is not beating a dead horse, and (b) beating a dead horse, while not as good as trying to resurrect it, is better than picnicking on its rotting carcass.

It makes a non-trivial point by putting the spotlight on the recent pride in ``scientific advancements`` evincd by both India and Pak. Even here in the US we routinely hear comments in the media such as ``Well Terri, these are smart people [talking of how India made the bomb]; after all these are the people who designed the pentium processor [referring to Vinod Dham in particular who was the Lead on the Intel pentium project]``. Such asinine comments show the wholesale ignorance of what constitutes being ``scientifically advanced``.

Also, as you point out, while it would be great to have Pervez interact here, its unlikely that he will do so given his time constraints - it was a minor miracle that he agreed to be a regular contributor. So it is rather lame to insinuate that when asked to give solutions,the prof does not come forward and interact. Personally putting the spotlight where it is needed and doing it in full public disclosure and doing it well, is, well, pretty good stuff. For other things that he is upto, try to get to know Mashal a bit more.

Thanks for telling us the truth. I wonder if the Pakistani newspaper will publish this as it is.

One small quibble I have is that I always thought that it was reason which beget science and not science that beget humanism, rationalism etc. Humanism is also I think a separate concept from science.

Science without humanism is a far more dangerous game than ignorance and fanaticism ala the Taliban
and our so-called scientific expertise.

Perhaps I digress, but I feel that merely criticising our priorities as a nation is not enough--Many wonderful writers do the same. Why we have those priorities should be looked into as well. Unfortunately most writers shy away from tackling questions of why we as a society give power to those who incite emotion rather than call to reason. Dont you think our morbid fascination with fear/dominance--starting with God onwards has a lot to do with our priorities?. Why is our concept of Allah so bloodthirsty? Why do we hate those weaker than us? Why do the educated shy away from speaking the truth? Why is it that we berate all our leaders yet each who comes to power is a mirror image of the last? Why is it that our writers hint at the truth but dont speak it?

Centuries of submission to superstition has made us almost sub-human. Isnt it time that intellectuals/writers said it like it is? Why are people so afraid to speak?

RE: Jitnay muNh utnee bataiN

Firstly, I believe (and Chowk kay mahafiz can refute if not true) that Pervez does not read these replies, and therefore, will not defend himself from the teekhay waar of the Chowkwalas.

Good for him!

To whom this is beating a dead horse and stating the obvious etc., I disagree vehemently. This is supposed to be an article for a mainstream Pakistani newspaper, whose audience is not the ``enlightened`` chowkwalas, at least not entirely. In the missile/nuclear bomb-induced paranoiac bliss that the Pakistani people at large find themselves in, who exactly has been beating the horse to death? Pervez has been a local voice of reason, an internal doubting conscience, for the last 25 years (more or less). He has survived so far and he continues to survive, and each day that he continues to point out the problems and misconceptions of the society he lives in is a tribute to his immense courage and determination, which to him is only doing the right thing. The real complainers, finger-pointers, ``problem-solvers``, etc. will always be there, and as usual they will make no difference, except provide for a self-gratifying exchange in the drawing room.

Pervez does make Pakistani masses think and self-reflect and that in itself is solving part of the problem. His ad should say:

Can your problem-solver do that?

Wa lam yakullahu kufuwun ahad, but Pakistan does need more like him.

Wallah aalam bissawab,

maTha

Re: Feroz

You are absolutely right, Feroz. We all now know Pakistan`s problems. They have been discussed umpteenth times. We`re beating a dead horse at this point. It is now time to discuss solutions, the ways to take the country out of the muck it has been stuck in for some time. Given the current political, social and economic situation in Pakistan, the country has no future. It`s a shame that, at the dawn of third millennium, Pakistan stands bankrupt both morally and financially and without a future.

As always, the problem lies with the machinery that runs a country, ie, its political setup. It is not working in Pakistan. How about this for the starters: do away with the borders of Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan and the Frontier, integrate the country into one piece and redraw the lines into small districts, something along the lines of Congressional Districts in the US (a jigsaw puzzle?). The more districts the better. Hopefully, this could help alleviate the ethnic problem of Punjabis, Sindhis, etc, and also make many more leaders to come forward and take responsibilities for their districts. A national leader with vision is bound to arise from this pool. This would also put a major dent in so-called horse-trading because there will be just too many politicians to buy. Further, hold the general election every three year, not five. Five years is too long a time. Three years will keep the pressure on the politicians to perform.

The only problem, as I see it, is Who will put the bell around cat`s neck?

What do you think? You are a very bright political scientist. I would like to hear from you.

Extremely persuasive article about the futility of the effort expended by nations trying to parade the ability to kill and maim as proof of technological progress.

Re: Ali Minai (reply #4)

Dear Ali,

I find very little in your response to argue with.

I completely agree with you about the subcontinental arms race and the hyperacute need to curb it - I was just trying to say that it`s a complex issue that won`t go away tomorrow.

On the need for elevating the level of intellectual discourse in Pakistan - of course. The need for developing science in Pakistan - of course. But if intellectual mediocrity is the problem, Dr. Hoodbhoy`s article is as guilty of it as our fourth-rate universities.

On the examples of non-G7 countries doing well in science - very interesting. Of the four countries you cite - India, Turkey, Hungary and Israel - only Israel produces the kind of world-class science that is routinely cited in US journals. This is not surprising when you realize that Jews were winning Nobel Prizes even during the Holocaust. Over 33% of the world`s Nobel laureates are Jews, while Jews are less than 0.33% of the world`s population. Thus Jews are 100-fold overrepresented in the population of Nobel Prize winners. I don`t know if they`re truly special, but the numbers sure make it look that way.

The other examples are clearly also noteworthy. Hungary has a strong tradition in science and mathematics going back centuries. And Turkey, Hungary and Israel are also all much richer than Pakistan.

India, the country in your list that most resembles Pakistan, has indeed benefited from the visions of its leaders in educational planning and in quality of professional institutes. But teaching and training professionals is one thing (which Pakistani schools like AKU, IBA, LUMS and GIK can do with world-class quality as well), advancing human knowledge through the creation of new information is quite another. Indian science has volume, but it is little noticed outside of India and even less often cited. Still, I do agree that the quality of the output is superior to Pakistan`s.

I am not defending Pakistan`s pitiful record in scientific research, but it is interesting to note that none of the countries you cite is crippled by a feudal ruling class. Outside of Pakistan, Pakistanis have done and are doing world-class science. Within Pakistan, a range of constraints keeps us scientifically backward. And the constraints are more complex than simply Nawaz Sharif mistaking an atomic bomb for true scientific achievement.

Saad

Re: Pervez Hoodbhoy

An interesting article that followed a very specific point of view, as all your articles have in the past, on the issue of scientific and technological advances in Pakistan.

In this, I agree with Shafqat`s assessment of your article. You have brillianly pointed out the problems, but as is your habit, you have not showed one iota of reasoning or advocated a recourse on how to resolve the problem! All your articles bemoan the state of Pakistan, rightly at times, but have no where offered a constructive critism of the problem. It does not require specific insights or a doctoral degree to quote all the ill of the Pakistani society. In a rather significant way, you have astutely demostrated your own analysis and have validated your own critism of Pakistani educational advances! You have offered no new insights, but have merely re-stated the obvivious; a critera which you use to blame Pakistani technical achivements.

This article reminded me of your other article on the use of a command and control régimé for Pakistani nuclear weapons and your rationale for employing PALs (Permissive Action Links). You merely point the problem and when I asked you specific questions on the issue, you were silent (as evidenced in the posts to that article).

Sir, you have some interesting observations, in your articles, but it is also incumbent upon you that when you offer a critism you should also suggest a solution to the problem. However, you prefer to cry ``wolf`` and if you persit in crying wolf in your articles, like the boy in that fable, your articles and your message will be ignored and that would be tragic, because you have some geniune concerns to share with all!

shafqat wrote:

``Professor sahab,You`re a real complainer.``

I think Shafqat totally missed the point professor is trying to make. No where I get an impression that he is complaining about insufficient funding for scientific institutes in Pakistan. He has simply tried to point to the deception politicians are playing by equating bombs and missiles with ``scientific achievement``.

This is sharp and sobering political commentary. One of the things that is striking is how in the age of neo-colonialism, Pakistan`s status as a peripheral state serves the interests of the West, yet the country continues in its state of economic subjugation and scientific under development. We`re busy producing foot balls, and cotton, products that do not require scientific refinement or research; yet we play with weapons of mass destruction, and have available to us, elite products of consumption, like latest model cars.

This is a eye-opening article of how our alleged technological advancement through missles is just a case of ``The Emperor`s new Clothes``; the fact that this technology has no substantive, meaningful advancement for us, is a sorry state of affairs. The timing couldn`t be perfect for such a piece.

As for replies complaining of Hoodbhoy`s complaining, I skimmed thorugh your response, and actually thought of responding, but how do you respond to an argumentative equivalent of the proverbial dog chasing its own tail?

Re. Shafqat

Saad,

While I agree with some of your points, I`m afraid I must take issue with most of your response to Parvez Hoodbhoy`s article.

First on the issue of defense spending. I do think that geopolitical realities require Pakistan to develop a strong defense. It is a pity that this should be so, and I think we should all work towards a time when Pakistan and India no longer fear and distrust each other. I do not buy the crap --- pardon my language --- that India and Pakistan must be enemies for some overarching moral, religious, or cultural reason. I do not think that the so-called two-nation theory has any intrinsic validity, but it has, unfortunately, turned out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Given this contingent reality, and the attitudes of governments in both countries, I do think it is appropriate to seek a position of some military strength while working for the day when it is no longer needed. I have no doubt that our children will either see the Sub-Continent become an economic union along the lines of the EU or disintegrate into anarchy. I hope it is the former.

Conceding that Pakistan must develop a strong defense, however, does not mean that the perpetuation of this situation should be the goal. Perhaps we do need to spend 30% of our GDP on defense today, but we must urgently seek ways to decrease this in the future. The way things are, I see little or no effort to develop an atmosphere where both India and Pakistan can de-escalate and divert some of their defense expenditures towards development. That --- not today`s defense expenditure --- is the real scandal.

I also agree with you that Pakistan (and other developing countries) cannot afford to support too much fundamental research. However, they must --- absolutely must --- support the intellectual development of the educated population. Perhaps Pakistan cannot build supercolliders and sponsor human genome projects. However, there is no excuse for not supporting world-class research in mathematics, theoretical physics, engineering, economics, the social sciences, literature, philosophy, and other such disciplines. Experimental research --- which eats up most research money --- is really only a small part of the world`s intellectual output. Fine, let us leave that to the U.S. and Japan. That still leaves a vast field of basic research that requires little more than creative minds, pencil, paper, some computer support, and a receptive environment. Of these, Pakistan has everything but the last. I would submit that it is not economic constraints which are responsible, but a societal --- and especially governmental --- disregard for intellectual achievement.

Let us take some examples: India, Israel, Turkey, and Hungary. India has more or less the same cultural conditions, climate, per-capita income, and political problems as Pakistan. Now look at publications by Indian scientists in the top physics, chemistry, and engineering journals.

Look at their international visibility. Above all, look at the quality of the work. True, most Indian universities are no better than most Pakistani universities, but their best universities and institutes --- and I mean the top dozen or so --- are world-class. Even the second-tier universities in India compare reasonably with second or third tier institutions in the US. Pakistani institutions are not even on the map. If India --- the quintessential third-world country --- can achieve scientific respectability without building Mars landers, so can Pakistan. It is not a lack of resources, but a lack of vision that holds us back.

Now turn to Israel. True, they receive $4 billion a year from the US in aid, and more from supporters in Europe and North America. But they need most of that just to keep their economy afloat and their defense strong. It is only a few years since inflation was running at 300% in Israel. Their entire Jewish population serves in the military. They have virtually no natural resources. Somehow, that has not kept them from producing some of the world`s pre-eminent mathematicians, physicists, biologists, engineers, linguists, archaeologists, and others. Their universities are among the world`s best, and their contribution to the world`s intellectual output is immense.

Next, consider Turkey --- a largely agrarian country, mostly Muslim, with a major separatist movement, very unstable politics, and difficult neighbors. Again, look at the contribution of Turkish scientists and engineers to top research publications, and look at the quality of their best universities (where, BTW, many Pakistanis on RCD scholarships received an excellent education).

Finally, let us take Hungary, circa 1989, which I chose for variety. True, it is --- and has been for many decades --- a fairly industrialized country. However, it is definitely not a rich country, has limited resources, suffered through Soviet occupation, is land-locked, and, in general, cannot aspire to great scientific projects. Yet, you know as well as I do, that some of the best neuroscience of the 60`s and 70`s --- and to this day --- comes from this small Eastern European nation. Indeed, all Eastern European countries have an incredibly strong record of producing outstanding mathematicians and scientists. Again, the key is in the attitude towards intellectual achievement.

I think what all these examples show is that economic limitations are only a very small part of Pakistan`s problems. The attitude towards education, development, social welfare, human rights, and intellectual endeavour is much more important.

I think that all the criteria that Dr. Hoodbhoy uses are legitimate and significant. It is true that Pakistan does not add enough value to its exports. It is true that Pakistan has no respectable universities (well, I suppose some like AKU are semi-respectable:-). It is true that the quality of intellectual discourse in Pakistan --- even in non-technical areas such as politics --- is fourth rate. It is true that Pakistani society is beset by the worst kind of obscurantist, reactionary forces imaginable --- the Taliban only being the most recent addition to this list. I don`t think any of us need reminding that Pakistan`s rulers --- past, present, and, alas, future --- would be in jail in most countries with a real justice system. The danger to Pakistan is not from spending money on missiles or bombs per se, but from the attitude which celebrates this situation instead of seeing it as a necessary evil. It is one thing to soberly pursue the country`s legitimate defense needs, but quite another to turn it into a national circus.

Finally, I will say this: All the things that you list among your priorities --- universal health care, primary education, vaccination, etc. --- are truly pressing national needs for Pakistan. but so are some of the things that Dr. Hoodbhoy talks about. No country can afford to fix its primary schools while letting its universities go to pot --- or vice-versa.

Ali Minai

Professor sahab,

You`re a real complainer. You are a liberal and a pacifist, but there is this hostility fueled by complaining in all your writings and statements that make your liberalism and your pacifism seem positively militant.

You have said that Pakistan`s acquisition of nuclear capability is not a sign of scientific progress. Fair enough. But you use too many words to say this and, in the process, give the impression of a thoughtful analysis. In fact, your article completely ignores (i) the geopolitical dynamic of nuclear power and (ii) the value of pure science to a developing country - the two core issues that make this subject infinitely more complex.

Developing societies can ill-afford spending money on pure research. For example, it is fashionable to complain about how the late Abdus Salam could make only a meager salary as a lecturer in Lahore and was forced to leave Pakistan, only to go on and win the Nobel Prize. But I ask you, what does a developing country do with a theoretical physicist who is seeking to unite the weak nulcear force with electromagnetism ? Not that this question isn`t a good one. Rather, it is too grand. In a country with crushing poverty and all the real pain that comes with it, thought experiments on the nature of matter do not deserve priority. Moreover, thank Allah that Salam sahab left - he needed the Western intellectual environment to realize his true destiny.

You are complaining about the lack of science and mathematics PhDs in Pakistan. Tell me, if you have them what will they do ? There is little money to fund research or to create jobs in science, so you will only end up defrauding many smart young people who could have done something more useful with their lives than work towards a degree that will not get them employment and which their country is too poor to use.

Some people - perhaps you included - would say to this that there is in fact a lot of money to support the pure scientific enterprise in Pakistan, if only we`d stop speding so much on a weapons race with India. To people who genuinely believe this, I have two things to say:

1. Our weapons race with India is a highly complex problem, given the historical, political and geographic realities. This is clearly the greatest need of the subcontinent today, but easier said than done.

2. Even if military expenditure is somehow eliminated from our budget, the funds should be channelized towards sanitation, clean water supplies, vaccine and other public health initiatives including comprehensive state-sponsored health care, roads, bridges and other public infrastructure, primary and secondary education, crime-fighting, and social welfare programs aimed at poverty. Funding pure science should come much, much later. We should feed, clothe and give dignity to all our people before we indulge in the luxury of pure science.

Dr. Hoodbhoy, you are a theoretical physicist but you openly embrace an activist social and political agenda. The former has given you academic success, the latter influence and notoriety. I think you are obliged to do something more substantial for Pakistan than just complain. I do agree that your complaints are more articulate and visible than most peoples`. But everybody can complain - it`s the easy way out.

Saad Shafqat